Justia U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

Petitioner, convicted of three counts including capital murder for intentionally killing a police officer, appealed the district court's dismissal of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. 2254. Petitioner alleged several claims, including a claim that a juror was "actually biased," in violation of his right to trial by an impartial jury. The court concluded that the district court's decision was not a final order over which the court has jurisdiction because the district court did not resolve this claim. Accordingly, the court dismissed the appeal and remanded. View "Porter v. Zook" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed suit challenging a hearing officer's conclusion that the School Board had provided O.S. with a free and appropriate education (FAPE). The district court affirmed the hearing officer's decision. At issue was whether the standard for a FAPE under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), 20 U.S.C. 1400 et seq., has changed since Board of Education v. Rowley. The court held that it has not and that, in evaluating whether a school provides a FAPE, the court still looks to whether the individualized education program (IEP) provides some education benefit to the student. Applying that standard to this case, the court concluded that the district court did not err in finding that the School Board met that requirement. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "O.S. v. Fairfax Cnty. Sch. Bd." on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of conspiracy and possession with intent to distribute cocaine. On appeal, he challenged his 188-month sentence as substantively unreasonable. The court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in considering defendant's violent juvenile crimes; the increase in the criminal history category does not raise the issue of “unwarranted sentencing disparities” identified in United States v. Howard; the record does not support defendant's argument that the third sale was a replacement, nor would the district court have abused its discretion by basing the base offense level calculation on seven kilograms even if it did constitute a replacement; and the proper avenue for a request for application of Amendment 782 is a motion under 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2), which would allow the district court to assess in the first instance whether and to what extent the amendment may affect defendant’s sentence. Accordingly, the court concluded that the sentence was substantively reasonable and affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. McCoy" on Justia Law

The district court concluded that the state habeas court had unreasonably applied the principles of Brady v. Maryland. The district court granted petitioner's habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. 2254, finding that the prosecuting attorney had admitted to petitioner's defense counsel that the victim of petitioner's attempted robbery crime told the prosecuting attorney before trial that he, the victim, had not been put in fear by petitioner on the date of the crime, an element essential to conviction under West Virginia law, and that the prosecuting attorney had failed to so inform petitioner. The court agreed with the State's appeal, contending that the district court impermissibly found new facts and erred in failing to give the appropriate deference to the state habeas court’s factual findings and conclusions of law made with respect to its adjudication of petitioners’ Brady claim. Accordingly, the court reversed the judgment. View "Watkins v. Rubenstein" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against his employer, NS, alleging that NS suspended him on the basis of his race in violation of 42 U.S.C. 1981. The district court granted summary judgment to NS and then plaintiff filed a second suit, claiming that NS in fact suspended him for reporting rail safety offenses, in violation of the whistleblower protection provision of the Federal Railroad Safety Act (FRSA), 49 U.S.C. 20109. The district court again granted summary judgment to NS. The court concluded, however, that the Election of Remedies provision in the FRSA does not bar plaintiff's second suit. The court explained that a suspension on the basis of race is not “the same allegedly unlawful act” as a suspension in retaliation for FRSA whistleblowing. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded for further proceedings. View "Lee v. Norfolk Southern Railway Co." on Justia Law

SawStop filed suit against two dozen saw manufacturers and affiliated entities under section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act, 15 U.S.C. 1, contending that several major table-saw manufacturers conspired to boycott SawStop’s safety technology and corrupt a private safety-standard-setting process, all with the aim of keeping that technology off the market. The district court dismissed SawStop's amended complaint. The court concluded that SawStop's complaint does not plausibly allege any conspiracy to manipulate safety standards; the complaint also fails to allege any facts at all against several corporate parents and affiliates; and therefore, the court affirmed the district court's dismissal as to these claims. However, the court concluded that SawStop has alleged enough to suggest a plausible agreement to engage in a group boycott where the complaint offers enough to survive defendants’ motion to dismiss. Accordingly, the court vacated the district court's dismissal as to this claim and remanded for further proceedings. View "SD3, LLC v. Black & Decker" on Justia Law

Intertape petitioned for review of the Board's order concluding that Intertape committed three unfair labor practices prior to and during the course of a union campaign, in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. 58(a)(1), and directing that a second election be held based upon two of the three violations. The Board cross-petitioned for enforcement. The court enforced the portion of the Board’s order concluding that Intertape engaged in unlawful interrogation of an employee in February of 2012, as well as the portion of the Board’s order concluding that Intertape unlawfully confiscated union flyers in March of 2012. The court denied enforcement, however, of the Board’s order concluding that Intertape engaged in unlawful surveillance of union activity in April of 2012, and remanded to the Board so that it can modify its order. Because the court's decision eliminates one of the bases upon which the Board set aside the election, the Board will need to reconsider its decision to direct a second election. Accordingly, the court granted the petition in part and denied it in part. View "Intertape Polymer Corp. v. NLRB" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his convictions for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute marijuana, possession with intent to distribute marijuana (and aiding and abetting the same), and carrying a firearm during and in relation to those drug trafficking crimes. The court held that the magistrate judge erred in concluding that defendant forfeited his right to counsel. Further, nothing in the record supports the government’s alternate contention that defendant either expressly or impliedly waived that right. Accordingly, the court vacated the conviction and remanded for a new trial because the error is not harmless. View "United States v. Ductan" on Justia Law

Defendant, an ordained Lutheran minister, moved to Haiti in 2004 to oversee a large ministry outside of Port Au Prince with his wife. Defendant conditionally plead guilty to two counts of engaging in an illicit sexual act with a minor after traveling in foreign commerce, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 2423(c) and (e), and was sentenced to 25 years in prison. At issue was whether Congress may prohibit individuals from engaging in non-commercial “illicit sexual conduct” after they “travel in foreign commerce.” The court held that the Foreign Commerce Clause provides constitutional sanction. The court also concluded that the sentenced imposed by the district court was reasonable. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Bollinger" on Justia Law

The FDIC-R filed a civil action against several officers and directors of a North Carolina bank, Cooperative Bank, alleging that the officers and directors were negligent, grossly negligent, and breached their fiduciary duties, resulting in the failure of the Bank. On appeal, the FDIC-R argued that the district court erred in finding that North Carolina’s business judgment rule shields the officers and directors from allegations of negligence and breach of fiduciary duty, and that there was insufficient evidence to support claims of gross negligence. The court vacated the district court’s grant of summary judgment on the FDIC-R’s claims of ordinary negligence and breach of fiduciary duty as to the Officer Defendants because the court found that there is sufficient evidence to rebut the initial evidentiary presumption of the North Carolina business judgment rule; reversed and remanded the district court’s order denying as moot the FDIC-R’s cross-motion for summary judgment, as well as its order denying as moot the FDIC-R’s motion to exclude the declaration of Robert T. Gammill and the attached exhibits; and affirmed the district court’s judgment with respect to the remaining claims. View "FDIC v. Rippy" on Justia Law